Outcomes, Not Just Incomes

Transcription

1 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes Improving Britain s understanding and measurement of child poverty Matthew Oakley and Matthew Tinsley Policy Exchange is the UK s leading think tank. We are an educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Registered charity no: Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Trustees Daniel Finkelstein (Chairman of the Board), Richard Ehrman (Deputy Chair), Theodore Agnew, Richard Briance, Simon Brocklebank-Fowler, Robin Edwards, Virginia Fraser, Edward Heathcoat Amory, David Meller, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Andrew Sells, Patience Wheatcroft, Rachel Whetstone and Simon Wolfson.

2 About the Authors Matthew Oakley is Head of Economics and Social Policy at Policy Exchange. His team focuses on welfare reform, growth and the UK economy, public sector reform and financial policy. As well as reports on the public sector pay premium he has recently published on: the next steps for tackling unemployment and benefit dependency; and areas where government must focus to boost growth in the long-term. Prior to joining Policy Exchange he was an Economic Advisor at the Treasury. His roles at the Treasury included working on property tax strategy, microeconomic analysis of the labour market and welfare reform and on medium-term tax strategy. He has an MSc in Economics from University College London, where he specialised in labour economics and econometrics. Matthew Tinsley joined Policy Exchange in September 2011 as a Research Fellow in the Economics & Social Policy Unit. Matthew s research interests include labour market topics such as unemployment and welfare as well as wider economic issues. Prior to joining Policy Exchange Matthew gained a Master s degree in Economics from the University of Bristol with a focus on the labour market, policy analysis and econometrics. Policy Exchange 2013 Published by Policy Exchange, Clutha House, 10 Storey s Gate, London SW1P 3AY ISBN: Printed by Heron, Dawson and Sawyer Designed by Soapbox, 2 policyexchange.org.uk

4 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Neil O Brien for input and comments. Any errors remain the authors. 4 policyexchange.org.uk

5 Executive Summary The problems with the current measures and targets Child poverty matters Reducing child poverty is a vital part of improving the lives of some of the most disadvantaged children in society. Ensuring that families have resources to meet their needs will help to both provide all children with a good start in life and bolster their future life chances. The last government s approach was based around a headline measure that defined child poverty as living in a household with less than 60% of median equivalised household income. 1 A combination of significant redistribution through the benefits and tax credits system and increased requirements and support to help families move at least one earner into work, meant that progress was made against this measure of relative income poverty. Today, 17.5% of all children live in households below the relative income poverty threshold, compared to over 25% in Despite this progress we are still some 7.5 percentage points away from hitting the 2020 target. The costs of redistributing incomes towards families living in relative income poverty to meet this target are prohibitive. However, this is not just a matter of finances. Even if the money were available to meet the targets set out in the Child Poverty Act, it is our belief that this would be an ineffective way of tackling the issue and would not deliver the outcomes that we all desire for children across all parts of society. In short, as well as the current targets being unrealistic, the way in which we measure child poverty is ineffective. The current measure is too narrow At the most basic level, the current measure does not even capture all those children that are classed as living materially deprived lives. Analysis in this report shows that 17.5% of children in the UK are classed as experiencing material deprivation but are not counted in the government s headline measure of relative income poverty. There is also a much broader argument that children s needs are not only financial or material. Previous Policy Exchange reports have argued that a good education, safe and supportive family life, parental employment, access to public services and future life chances are all factors that could easily be defined as a need, if not a right, for all children in society. Income is an important factor in achieving many of these needs. Without incomes sufficient to provide food, clothing, transport to school and work and to engage in many of the social activities that many families take for granted for their children, meeting these needs would be impossible. However, measuring income 1 The process of equivalisation weights household incomes to account for differences in family sizes in an attempt to make incomes comparable between families of different sizes. policyexchange.org.uk 5

6 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes alone cannot tell you whether education, health care or housing has improved for the least well off children in society. It cannot tell you whether social mobility is improving or whether the money is helping the next generation of children to avoid the need for government support altogether. All that it can measure is the level of income inequality at one point in time, not the use to which incomes are put to or the change in the outcomes which they should be driving. Most importantly, it cannot measure the impacts on children s lives. The current measure incentivises short-term policy responses The current approach, based on a headline measure of relative income poverty, also incentivises government to focus policy on short-term income redistribution rather than on improving broader outcomes that would improve children s lives. A report recently published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has recently noted: that too much fixation on income-based measures may skew the policy response towards reforms that have immediate and predictable impacts on household incomes (such as tax and benefit changes) rather than those that most cost-effectively improve children s quality of life or reduce the risk of intergenerational transmission of poverty (such as improvements to education.) 2 2 Cribb, J., Joyce, R., & Phillips, D., (2012). Living Standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: IFS Commentary C parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/ cmhansrd/chan100.pdf 4 Cribb, J., Joyce, R., & Phillips, D., (2012). Living Standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: IFS Commentary C See gov.uk/spend_sr2010_speech. htm and gov.uk/junebudget_speech.htm. Also note that this policy was subsequently reversed. 6 The Pupil Premium was proposed by Policy Exchange in our 2008 report School Funding and Social Justice. We can certainly see that most analysis focuses on the headline relative income measure. For instance, it is usually only this measure that appears in impact assessments for new policy announcements. We can also see that policy has focussed on reforms that will impact heavily on this measure of child poverty. For instance, some 170 billion was spent on tax credits between 2003 and From a family perspective, the net financial support available each year for the poorest half of households with children has increased by some 4,000 since 1998/99, over and above increases that would have come from changes in line with inflation. 4 A specific example is the 2010 Emergency Budget and Spending Review. Based on a model of household incomes that bears little resemblance to actual outcomes that children are experiencing, these two fiscal events committed to spending some 8 billion through Child Tax Credit in order to ensure that there was no measurable impact on child poverty for two years. 5 At the same time, we know that education, health, quality of childcare, the incidence of teenage pregnancy, infant mortality rates and child development are all worse for children from more deprived areas and poorer families. It is clear that simply redistributing money to these families will not tackle the depth of the problems involved. On a positive note, progress has been made against some of these areas. For instance, the Pupil Premium has targeted resources at disadvantaged students in an attempt to close the attainment gap between them and their peers. 6 Significant levels of expenditure have also been targeted on childcare and Sure Start. However, the structure of the current measure means that government has little incentive to compare the costs and benefits of spending on direct income transfers and investment in services and support. When considering the commitments made at the Spending Review and Budget in 2010, the key question is whether it might have been more effective to commit to spending this 8 billion on 6 policyexchange.org.uk

7 Executive Summary tackling disadvantage in education, health or employment. A key example is the relative impacts of expenditure on Child Tax Credit and childcare. Under the current system, short-term falls in child poverty from income redistribution are prioritised over investments in childcare provision that might boost longterm employment, increase wages, reduce dependency and lead to larger falls in relative income poverty in the medium term. In short, a key problem with the current measure of child poverty is that it leaves government little room to focus on policies that would have an impact over a longer time period, but which might have a greater impact on children s lives. Progress against the current measure has come largely though redistribution Today 17.5% of all children live in households below the relative income poverty threshold, compared to over 25% in However, the focus on short-term redistribution of income has meant that the progress that has been made against the existing headline measure has not come through large changes in the working patterns of families. While it is true that progress has been made in helping lone parents into work over the last 15 years, recent research from the IFS shows that the majority (some 87%) of the fall in child poverty comes through channels that cannot be linked to changes in employment status. The report summarises that: Overall, whilst factors such as changes in parental work patterns play some role in explaining recent changes in child poverty, it is clear that tax and benefit reforms have played the most significant role. 7 This result is unsurprising given that the report also shows that increases in the state support available to families with children has increased faster than the rise in the poverty line in nine of the last 12 years (and often significantly so). Analysis in this report also shows that the balance between work-contingent and non-workcontingent tax credits has changed in In short, a key problem with the current measure of child poverty is that it leaves this period. For a lone parent with one child, non-work-contingent Child Tax Credit has increased by 63% since 2003, while Working Tax Credit has risen by 28%. Given this, it is unsurprising that the largest factor driving the reduction in child poverty has been the fall in incidence of poverty amongst workless lone parent households. On its own this accounted for a 3.5 percentage point reduction in the headline child poverty rate (41% of the total change). Table ES1 shows poverty rates for households split by family type and work status. It clearly shows that the largest falls in poverty rates between 1998/99 and 2010/11 were in workless households and those households with more children. For instance the poverty rate of workless lone parent households with four or more children fell by nearly 50 percentage points and for workless two-parent households with three children it fell by just over 20 percentage points. Conversely, for two parent households with just one child, poverty rates increased for both in-work and out-of-work families. For couple families with two children, the only real reductions in poverty came from workless households. government little room to focus on policies that would have an impact over a longer-time period 7 Re-created from Cribb, J., Joyce, R., & Phillips, D., (2012). Living Standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: IFS Commentary C124.p.88. policyexchange.org.uk 7

8 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes Table ES1: Rates of relative income poverty for children by household composition and work status 1998/99 Poverty rate 2010/11 Poverty rate 1998/99 to 2010/11 Change in rate (ppt) Lone parent households 1 child Workless In work children Workless In work children Workless In work or more children Workless In work Two parent households 1 child Workless In work Both In work children Workless In work Both In work children Workless In work Both In work or more children Workless In work Both In work Source: HBAI, authors own calculations. Overall we have seen the level of income available from non-work-contingent tax credits increase significantly faster than that available from work-contingent tax credits. This has focussed financial gains on workless households and those with larger families, pushing against the desire to increase incentives to work and doing little to tackle the underlying problem of worklessness. It also means that improvements in factors such as employment levels which would help families to support themselves have been limited in a way that the legislated poverty measures do not identify. 8 policyexchange.org.uk

9 Executive Summary Responsibilities between the state and households have been blurred In 2010/11, working households contributed around 60% of the 2.3 million children measured as being in relative income poverty. 8 While this fact cannot be disputed, it is essential that policy responses are based on an analysis that looks beneath the headline figures. There are significant differences between families in work who are classed as living in relative income poverty and those who are not. One of the clearest differences is the number of hours that the households work. Figure ES1 shows that over half of two-parent households in relative income poverty are working less than 40 hours, or less than one full time job, between them. This is in stark contrast to two-parent families not experiencing in-work relative income poverty where 82% work more than 40 hours a week and half work more than 64 hours a week. Figure ES1: Cumulative distribution of two parent households by hours worked and poverty status, 2010/11 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Hours worked a week Two parent low income Two parent non-low income Source: HBAI and Family Resources Survey (FRS), authors own calculations. Overall it is clear that the number of hours that households work is key to assessing the likelihood of poverty and, indeed, the policy response. Two obvious levers for reducing in-work relative income poverty are increased earnings and increased redistribution. However, the impacts of tax and benefit changes on relative income poverty occur much more quickly, and are relatively easy to model, compared to reforms that encourage families to increase hours and earnings. This means that the current measure has incentivised a short-term response through redistribution rather than helping and supporting families to increase their hours or earnings. This raises important questions over the balance of responsibilities between the household and the state and has, at least implicitly, placed responsibility for tackling poverty in the hands of the state, rather than the household. In this respect, the current approach to child poverty is at odds with the government s broader welfare reforms: when Universal Credit is introduced, each claimant will be required to sign a claimant commitment which outlines the hours that the household is expected to attempt to work in order to be eligible for state support. 8 Relative income poverty statistics from Households Below Average Income 2010/11, Department for Work and Pensions. policyexchange.org.uk 9

10 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes Legislating poverty targets 9 There are a number of principles which an effective legislated target must uphold. This report shows that the current legislated target for child poverty does not meet any of these principles: z The current framework cannot fully explain the problem or create a consensus for action; z Government does not have the necessary tools to influence outcomes an obvious example is the fact that the current headline measures of child poverty move in counter-intuitive ways across the economic cycle; z The framework leads to unintended consequences, like large increases in Child Tax Credit undermining incentives to work; and z No-one can effectively be held to account as a result of failing to meet the legislated targets. What a new measure should look like A measure that drives government action, not statistical debates We believe that a broader approach to measuring and tackling poverty will address many of the problems that exist with the current measure. For this reason, it is encouraging that the government is now consulting on a new multidimensional approach to measuring child poverty. As our report Tackling the causes of poverty argued, an approach that measures outcomes not just incomes will allow us to better understand and tackle child poverty and all of its consequences. The key purposes of this new measure should be threefold: z Holding the government to account in its progress against a range of outcomes that define childhood poverty; z Providing policy makers with a range of tools to tackle poverty; and z Incentivising cross departmental working towards a common goal. 9 Note that this section draws heavily on an insightful roundtable event held at the Institute for Government and the following paper: Rutter & Knighton (2012). Legislated Policy Targets: Commitment device, political gesture or constitutional outrage? Institute for Government (http://www. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ sites/default/files/publications/ Legislated%20policy%20 targets%20final.pdf ). However, views expressed are solely the authors. To do this, we put forward a new measure of child poverty that combines measures of incomes (both absolute and relative) with both an assessment of the work capabilities of the household and a broader range of disadvantage factors that suggest the presence of social poverty. There will undoubtedly be a debate around the statistical properties of any new measure. In particular, for any measure that looks to combine a range of factors that define childhood poverty, there will be debates around what factors are included and how they are measured. In tackling these issues we have taken a pragmatic approach. The most important characteristic of a new measure is that it drives action from government and improves outcomes and lives for children across the UK. We hope that others keep this over-riding goal in mind when they engage with this debate. Summary of recommendations Reflecting our argument that the current targets for child poverty reduction were not met in past, will not be met in the future and do not meet the criteria for an effective legislated target: 10 policyexchange.org.uk

11 Executive Summary Recommendation: The current child poverty targets as set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010 should be repealed. No future targets should be legislated for. However, simply removing the targets will not be enough. The current measures of child poverty are too narrow, create policy distortions and have damaging effects on incentives: Recommendation: The government should introduce a new measure of child poverty. This should be based on a number of outcomes that reflect the full range of needs that children have, rather than simply measuring incomes. The requirement to monitor and publish statistics relating to this measure should be legislated for in a new Child Poverty Bill. This should supersede the Child Poverty Act 2010 and replace, rather than supplement, the current legislated measures for child poverty and their associated targets. When designing the new measure, we believe that the measurement of incomes must remain a part of the assessment of poverty. In particular, we believe that any household falling below an absolute level of poverty should continue to be classed as living in poverty. Recommendation: The new framework should include a commitment to continue to monitor and publish a measure of absolute poverty based on the existing measure outlined in the Child Poverty Act Any household living below this absolute poverty line should be classed as being in poverty. We also believe that, because of the unconditional commitment the state has made to supporting them, there are a number of groups that should be classed as living in poverty if they fall below a given level of income measured against other households in society. Recommendation: Households where the state provides financial support without the requirement that the parents should either look for work at all, or increase their hours or earnings, should be classed as being in poverty if they fall below 60% of median equivalised household income. This commitment would require the monitoring of data (which is currently unavailable) on relative low income for families placed in the lower conditionality groups within Universal Credit (ESA claimants; those on Income Support and those with caring responsibilities which mean they are not expected to seek work). This may require additional questions to be included in the Family Resources Survey (FRS) or links to be made with administrative data as part of the new Universal Credit system. Recommendation: Households working above the number hours expected in their claimant commitment should be classed as being in poverty if they fall below 60% of equivalised household median income. This measure could be relatively easily created within the existing FRS, but again, matching data from Universal Credit would be desirable. policyexchange.org.uk 11

12 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes As well as these income measures, we believe that a new multi-dimensional approach should be encapsulated in the measurement of social poverty. This would be built around a measure that shows, at a household level, how many children experience a given number of disadvantage factors. One of these factors should be low relative income. Recommendation: As outlined in the government s consultation document, the new measure of child poverty must be multidimensional. This could be reflected in a measure of social poverty that reflects the number of disadvantage factors a household has. It should be measured at a household level either within the FRS or within other data sources that can be matched in the FRS. This measure should be combined with the measures of absolute and relative income poverty to outline a measure of the total number of children in poverty. Once the range of disadvantage factors to include has been determined, the key question is how they should be combined to allow government to publish a headline figure of social and total child poverty. Recommendation: In order to produce a measure that is understandable and transparent, the measure of social poverty should simply sum the number of disadvantage factors that a household is experiencing and set a benchmark for the number needed to be classed as being in poverty. Recommendation: Changing the measure should not be about massaging down the headline measure of child poverty or reducing the costs of tackling the problem. This means that the number of disadvantage factors required to be classed as in social poverty should be set so that, once added to the children classed as being in absolute or relative income poverty, at least the same total number of children are classed as living in poverty as under the current measure. While one may argue over the statistical validity of an approach which simply sums disadvantage factors and sets a seemingly arbitrary benchmark for poverty, we believe that it provides transparency over the government s progress on a range of measures and would act as a spur to government policy to improve the lives of children across the UK experiencing a range of dimensions of poverty. It would also provide a firm lever with which to consolidate action across Whitehall. This framework would make it clear how each department might feed into the reduction of child poverty and, as such, it would make it easier to hold each department to account. As well as these obvious advantages, the arbitrary setting of a social poverty line can also be mitigated by requiring the government to publish a measure of the dimensions of poverty that households experience. Recommendation: Alongside the measure of the level of poverty, the government should also publish a measure that takes account of the dimensions of poverty that households experience. This would involve publishing summary statistics that sum how many disadvantage factors children are experiencing and splitting this by whether or not the household is classed as experiencing other types of poverty. 12 policyexchange.org.uk

13 Executive Summary This might look like Table ES2, which could also be broken down by demographic groups. Table ES2: Example of how reporting table on disadvantage factors might look Number of disadvantage factors in household Total number and proportion of children living in these households Rate Number 0 Q% A 1 W% B 2 E% C 3 R% D 4 T% E 5 Y% F 6 U% G 7 I% H 8 O% I Total 100% Column sum The final question is over the factors which we believe should be incorporated into a measure of social poverty. We have taken a pragmatic approach to this question in an attempt to drive government policy accountability and improve children s lives. This means that only disadvantage factors which are readily measurable or easy to incorporate or match into the FRS should be included in a measure of social poverty: Recommendation: For those disadvantage factors that can already be captured by existing variables within the FRS, the government should immediately begin to publish data relating to the number of households experiencing these factors. Recommendation: For those disadvantage factors that cannot be captured within the current FRS, the government must work with the data providers and statisticians to assess the potential for extra variables to be added to the FRS or for a data matching exercise to take place. As well as the potential for this exercise to require increased funding from the DWP and other departments, it is essential that any changes to the FRS do not undermine the current value of the FRS in providing information about the living conditions and resources of people in the UK. Disadvantage factors which cannot be measured or incorporated into the FRS should not be used in a measure of social poverty. policyexchange.org.uk 13

14 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes Recommendation: Aspects of social poverty that it is deemed impossible to capture within the FRS, but that the government is interested in, should not be used in the measure of social poverty. Instead, the government should publish individual measures of these disadvantage factors alongside the headline poverty measure. Given our belief that it should be possible to measure these factors within the FRS or with data that can be matched in to it, we believe it is desirable and possible to include the following disadvantage factors in a measure of social poverty: z Household is in relative income poverty; z Household is workless, but expected to work under Universal Credit conditionality; z Child is themselves a parent; z Quality of housing is poor or the family is living in temporary accommodation. z Family are experiencing an unsustainable level of debt; z Child has been taken into care in their lifetime; z Child or parents have had engagement with the criminal justice system; and z Child has low educational attainment. Figure ES2 demonstrates how a measure structured like this might be constructed in practice. Based on an assessment of household level survey evidence it would provide a straightforward and easily implementable approach to assessing child poverty. We believe that a number of factors are more difficult to measure either at a household level or within the FRS, but would warrant inclusion in a publication that tracks performance against a range of measures. A wide range of measures should be included in this document and should include: z Gaps between the incidence of infant mortality; levels of child development and unauthorised school absence between families at different points in the income distribution (for instance the 10th and 90th percentiles); z The number and proportion of children living in households where a parent has a alcohol or drug dependence; z Employment gaps for disadvantaged groups; z The number and proportion of households relying on the state for more than 50% of their household income; and z The number of children in never worked households and how these are split between those who are workless because of a disability, ill health or caring responsibilities and those who are workless, but could work. Outcomes, not just incomes Basing a new measure of child poverty on the approach we have outlined above would provide government with levers to tackle the full extent of child poverty in the UK. It would give stakeholders, interest groups and the public a fuller account of low income and social poverty in the UK and the progress that government is making in tackling them. By doing so it would be a catalyst to improving the lives of children across the UK. 14 policyexchange.org.uk

15 Executive Summary Figure ES2: Demonstration of how the measure would work In absolute poverty set at 2010/11 median income levels? No Is the household one of the following: On Employment and Support allowance or Income Support or have caring responsibilities that mean they are not subject to full Universal Credit work conditionality? Working more than expected hours as outlined in the claimant commitment in Universal Credit. Yes No In relative income poverty? Yes (absolute poverty) Yes (relative income poverty) No Does the child or households have more than [X (e.g. 3)] of the following problems: Household is in relative income poverty. Household is workless, but expected to work under Universal Credit conditionality. Child is themselves a parent. Quality of housing is poor or the family is living in temporary accommodation. Family are experiencing an unsustainable level of debt. Child has been taken into care in their lifetime. Child or parents have had engagement with the criminal justice system. Child has low educational attainment. Yes (social poverty) Total in poverty policyexchange.org.uk 15

16 1 Assessing Child Poverty in the UK Very few people would argue that governments should not support the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in society. The reduction of child poverty is a key tool in doing this and in improving these children s lives both now and in the future. However, approaches between countries and across time have been varied. A key driver of these differences has been that there are many possible measures of child poverty. Each of these has its own advantages and downfalls. No measure is perfect and, ultimately, each should be assessed on the basis of its success in improving the lives of children living in disadvantaged circumstances. The Child Poverty Act framework The current approach to tackling child poverty in the UK was initiated with the announcement in 1999 of the goal that the government would eradicate child poverty within a generation. Subsequent announcements committed the government to the intermediate goals of reducing child poverty by a quarter before 2004/5 and a half by 2010/ These targets were set around a measure of poverty based on relative household incomes. A household would be classed as being in poverty if they were in receipt of less than 60% of net median equivalised household income. In 2002 the Department for Work and Pensions launched a consultation into additional and alternative measures. 11 This consultation began the process from which the current framework for measuring and addressing child poverty arose through the Child Poverty Act This committed the government to a number of targets based on four measures of poverty: 10 Kennedy, S. and Townsend, I. (2009). Child Poverty Bill, Bill No 112 of House of Commons Library Research Paper 09/62 30 June measuring-child-poverty.pdf z Relative low income An equivalised net household income less than 60% of the median net equivalised household income. The target is for this to be no more than 10% of children by z Combined low income and material deprivation Living in a household earning less than 70% of median equivalised household income and experiencing material deprivation, with a target of 5% by z Absolute low income Equivalised household net income below 60% of the 2010/11 median after adjusting for inflation. The Act set a target of 5% to be achieved by z Persistent poverty Living below the relative low income threshold in at least three of the last four years. The target is to be set with the consent of child poverty commission by policyexchange.org.uk

17 Assessing Child Poverty in the UK However, while in practice there are four measures and targets contained within the legislation, historical and international precedent has meant that the relative low income measure is still regarded as the headline measure of child poverty in the UK. For instance, in impact assessments of policy reforms the government regularly only publishes data relating to the relative low income measure. For this reason, the rest of this chapter focuses its analysis most strongly on this measure and its associated target. Child poverty in the UK today There is no doubt that, since 1999, progress has been made. The numbers of children living in poverty, as defined by the headline figure, have fallen. Based on this measure, some 1.02 million children have been lifted out of poverty. 12 Significant policy reforms through tax credits and the reform of welfare and employment support have been introduced and billions of pounds spent on trying to achieve this goal. Today 17.5% of all children live in households below the relative income poverty threshold, compared to over 25% in However, it has become startlingly clear that meeting the target as set out in the Child Poverty Act, is not achievable. Figure 1.1 demonstrates both the progress that has been made and the large gap between where we are now and where we would need to be on course to meet the headline target in Figure 1.1: Proportion of all children in relative income poverty and 2011 target 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1998/9 1999/ / / /03 Relative low income Source: HBAI dataset, author s own calculations. 2003/ / / / / / / /11 Required rate for 2010/11 target Recent estimates suggest that closing this gap and meeting the headline target would cost around 19 billion a year by Even outside of the context of the financial crisis and need for fiscal consolidation, it is unlikely that any government would have been able to pump that level of expenditure into tackling child poverty. This creates a major problem with the legislated target. Problem with the current framework 1: The costs of meeting the 2020 child poverty target are too great for any government to meet. They are unrealistic and will be missed. 12 Figures from Households Below Average Income dataset, author s own calculations. These do not match perfectly with official HBAI statistics, however we choose to use the raw data as this allows greater analytical flexibility. 13 Cost of cutting child poverty rises as families fall further below poverty line, Institute for Fiscal Studies press release, policyexchange.org.uk 17

18 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes The problems with the current framework are not confined to the fact that the targets are unrealistic. We believe there are also underlying problems with the way in which we measure child poverty. Comparing different measures Given the various definitions of child poverty that exist, a key question is how they interact and overlap. If each measure identified the same groups of people and families, then the choice of measure would not be a matter of contention. However, this is not necessarily the case. On a positive note, relative income poverty, material deprivation and worklessness are, to some extent, correlated. Figure 1.2 shows how the three concepts overlap. Of the 38% of children living in households that experienced at least one of these three in 2009/10, 46% experienced more than one. However two thirds of the children experiencing material deprivation are not classed as experiencing relative income poverty. This means that 17.5% of children in the UK are classed as experiencing material deprivation but are not counted in the government s headline measure of relative income poverty. Figure 1.2: Proportion of children in households experiencing relative income poverty, material deprivation and worklessness, 2010/11 Source: HBAI dataset, author s own calculations. Problem with the current framework 2: The focus on relative income poverty means that a number of children and families that we might think are living materially deprived lives are not picked up by the measure. The measure does not capture the full nature of child poverty in the UK. These differences in definitions also become problematic when we compare progress over time. Figure 1.3 shows the proportion of children judged to be in poverty between 1998/99 and 2010/11 based on the different measures. 18 policyexchange.org.uk

19 Assessing Child Poverty in the UK Figure 1.3: Proportion of children in poverty judged by different measures over time 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1994/5 1995/6 1996/7 1997/8 1998/9 1999/00 Relative low income Absolute low income Material deprivation 2000/ / / / / /06 Combined RLI and MD Persistent poverty 2006/ / / / /11 Source: HBAI dataset, with exception of Persistent Poverty and Absolute Low Income which used HBAI release. As outlined above, relative income poverty has fallen significantly since the late 1990s. The fact that median incomes were rising significantly during this period of time makes this progress even more impressive. Rises in median incomes have meant that the poverty threshold rose (see Figure 1.4) and that we have been aiming for a moving target. Figure 1.4: Value of different income thresholds for a two child household over time ( ) Relative income poverty, before housing costs Relative income poverty, after housing costs Source: HBAI release. This is not a problem experienced when tracking the absolute poverty measure. Since the absolute poverty threshold is fixed at 60% of the 1998/9 median equivalised income and wages have risen across the income distribution in real terms, this measure has seen the greatest fall. This trend is clearest in the late 1990s and early 2000s where the absolute low income rate was halved to 14% in the policyexchange.org.uk 19

20 Outcomes, Not Just Incomes space of five years. Only 11% of children now live in households that fall below the 1998/9 poverty line. It is now at a similar level as the persistent poverty measure. The fact that persistent relative income poverty is much lower than overall relative income poverty measured in any one year is a reflection of the fact that large numbers of families move in and out of poverty between different years as their circumstances change. This reflects the fact that poverty is not a static issue. It has a dynamic nature. These three measures can therefore offer quite different perspectives on what is happening to the poorest families, despite all focussing directly on income. This makes it difficult to build a consensus around even just the income measures of poverty. Impact of the recession The recession has had large scale impacts on the labour market and households standards of living. Unemployment has risen sharply, real wages for those still in work have fallen and the Office for National Statistics have recently demonstrated that household s real disposable incomes have fallen to their lowest levels since the second quarter of It is natural to assume that these changes in living standards should have increased the measured level of child poverty. It is true that some of the most significant changes in the number of children measured to be in poverty have happened in the last few years as the recession squeezed incomes and unemployment rose. However, the problem is that, while median income has fallen in real terms, benefits have tended to track inflation and this has meant that a large number of households have been lifted above the relative low income threshold. In the most recent HBAI releases the proportion of children falling below the relative income poverty threshold fell by another two percentage points to 17.5%. 14 In short, rather than rising when living standards have fallen, measured child poverty has fallen. This clearly indicates that measuring child poverty based on a relative income measure has odd cyclical effects. When the economy is weak and median incomes and standards of living are falling, relative income poverty is also falling. The measure fails to identify the effects of economic downturns on the living standards of deprived families or those close to being deprived. This is not the case with other measures of poverty. At the same time as relative income poverty has been falling, the material deprivation measure has shown an increase in the proportion of children measured as being in poverty (Figure 1.5). If each of the four measures within the existing framework were regarded equally, this would not present a problem. However, given almost all of the political and media attention falls on the relative income measure, this cyclicality presents a major problem in effectively holding government to account and incentivising policy responses that will improve children s outcomes and lives. 14 Households Below Average Income dataset, author s own calculations. Child poverty or income inequality? At the core of this criticism of the headline measure of relative income poverty is the fact that it measures income inequality, rather than a broader view of what poverty constitutes. When incomes fall, but the bottom of the distribution compresses, poverty also falls. When incomes rise across the board, but inequality remains the same, the headline measure of child poverty does not fall. This criticism can also be levelled at the two other targets that rely on a measurement of current median household incomes. 20 policyexchange.org.uk

Ending child poverty by 2020 Progress made and lessons learned June 2012 Foreword Alison Garnham On 14 June the Department for Work and Pensions will release the latest child poverty figures for the period

Universal Credit: welfare that works. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by Command of Her Majesty November 2010 Cm 7 9 5 7 19.75 Universal Credit: welfare that works.

Policy: report Bricks or benefits? Rebalancing housing investment Foreword Back in 1966, housing was described in Cathy Come Home as the Cinderella of the Cinderella s of the welfare state and since then

An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK Report of the National Equality Panel An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK: Report of the National Equality Panel John Hills (Chair) Mike Brewer Stephen

Has Labour made work pay? Has Labour made work pay? Mike Brewer and Andrew Shephard The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development

Social Exclusion Task Force Reaching Out: Think Family Analysis and themes from the Families At Risk Review Ministerial Foreword Ministerial Foreword Families are the bedrock of our society. They can provide

Universal Credit in Northern Ireland: what will its impact be, and what are the challenges? IFS Report R77 James Browne Barra Roantree Universal Credit in Northern Ireland: what will its impact be, and

What will it take to end child poverty? This publication can be provided in alternative formats such as large print, Braille, audiotape and on disk. Please contact: Communications Department, Joseph Rowntree

All Together Now Competitive integration in the NHS Henry Featherstone Edited by David Skelton Foreword by David Prior All Together Now Competitive integration in the NHS Henry Featherstone Edited by David

Backing the Future: why investing in children is good for us all nef is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being. We aim to improve quality of life by promoting

1000 days to get it right for every child The effectiveness of public investment in New Zealand children - A report prepared by Infometrics Ltd for Every Child Counts He Mana tō ia Tamati/Every Child Counts

More Choices, More Chances: A Strategy to Reduce the Proportion of Young People not in Education, Employment or Training in Scotland More Choices, More Chances: A Strategy to Reduce the Proportion of Young

Social Exclusion Task Force Think Family: Improving the life chances of families at risk Social Exclusion Task Force Ministerial Foreword Ministerial Foreword For over ten years now, the Social Exclusion

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 10 Measuring child poverty New league tables of child poverty in the world s rich countries Innocenti Report Card 10 was written by Peter Adamson. Two background

Do the UK Government s welfare reforms make work pay? IFS Working Paper W13/26 Stuart Adam James Browne Do the UK government s welfare reforms make work pay? Executive Summary Stuart Adam and James Browne

No school an island Suffolk education inquiry final report Louise Bamfield, Joe Hallgarten and Matthew Taylor May 2013 No school an island The RSA in partnership with Contents Acknowledgements 4 Foreword

Working Paper 10 November 2014 Were we really all in it together? The distributional effects of the UK Coalition government's tax-benefit policy changes Paola De Agostini, John Hills and Holly Sutherland

Report of the 21st Century Social Work Review changing lives Report of the 21st Century Social Work Review lives changing Scottish Executive, Edinburgh 2006 Crown copyright 2006 ISBN: 0-7559-4824-6 Scottish

Research Report DCSF-RR021 Pilot Scheme for Two Year Old Children Evaluation of Outreach Approaches Anne Kazimirski, Sarah Dickens and Clarissa White National Centre for Social Research Research Report

HOW MANY, HOW MUCH? Single homelessness and the question of numbers and cost A report for Crisis by Peter Kenway and Guy Palmer from the New Policy Institute Crisis is the national charity for solitary

A New System for Better Employment and Social Outcomes Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform to the Minister for Social Services FINAL REPORT February 2015 ISBN number: 978-1-925007-78-7 Commonwealth